Should we view wealth hoarding as dysfunctional as any other form of hoarding?

We tend to view those who acquire and accumulate "stuff" endlessly as hoarders who are dysfunctional and requiring health care assistance. Therefore, those whose lives are an endless accumulation of wealth and who use that wealth for little more than acquiring ever more "stuff" and/or endlessly stimulating as many pleasure centers as they can as often as then can seem to fall into that dysfunctional category.

Closing Statement from william clegg

We had quite a lively debate ensued on this topic. The majority of comments suggest that hoarding wealth is, in fact, dysfunctional and many offered insightful ways in which they saw that dysfunction being played out in the real world. They also point out that the harm caused by a wealth hoarder is generally imposed upon their community while for other forms of hoarding it is the hoarder themselves who bears the brunt of that behaviour.

There were a few who were opposed to the hoarding label and who appeared to have no problem with the endless accumulation of wealth, largely because they seem to believe that the wealth was still being invested but offered no validation of this premise. As well that seems to be a rather specious argument if all the investing does is acquire more wealth.

It was pointed out a number of times that hoarding can have very real health issues involved, both psychological and physical. However, whether those health issues are as problematic for the wealth hoarder who has estates with lots of gates, security and staff to hide behind as they are in the poor and middle class who are far more visible is uncertain. Although the number of wealthy celebrities who have overdosed on drugs and/or alcohol abuse may be one indicator.

But the most humorous comments appeared to take real umbrage with the mere suggestion that wealth was being hoarded and even employed old 20th century commie fear mongering to make their - rather dull - point. .

It seems that for the majority of contributors hoarding is hoarding and as such is as dysfunctional as other forms of hoarding but that we all experience the consequences of that dysfunction. .

1. Does excessive self-indulgence qualify as a dysfunction?
2. Does excessive self-indulgence hinder the progress of others?

Spending money on yourself isn't indicative of a dysfunction. However, when the behavior begins to have negative impacts on the person, and the person refuses to correct the problem it becomes a dysfunction.

Let's look at the latter in a different way. Does the accumulation of wealth by a select group hinder the progress of others? We need to ask ourselves a couple questions.

1. Does this accumulation of wealth inhibit others from achieving the same state?

2. Does the system itself have the capacity for all people to achieve the same state.

Hoarding assets disrupts the supply chain. It narrows the funnel in which the rich should be supplying increased assets down the pipeline. This is not happening.

I don't see it as a dysfunction for the individual. However, it does create a very dysfunctional society.

The only viable argument is that this system increases innovation by providing companies increased assets to create new products and hire more people.

This argument is flawed. An increase in the distribution of assets would allow more people to start new businesses, grow existing businesses, and progress as individuals. This would increase innovation and social progress across the board.

Oct 23 2013:
I wouldn't view wealth hoarding alone as dysfunctional unless it is accompanied by neglect towards other responsibilities- responsibility towards family, humanity and also nature. If a person can keep balance between these aspect of life (which I would think would be very difficult as hoarding is a preoccupation) I wouldn't view hoarding as an issue.

Wealth however, should always remain a means and should not become an end in itself. Means to developing ones capacity and the capacity of others so that we can all become agents of change.

Oct 23 2013:
excellent points and I agree that it is the dysfunction that is at issue here and we already view other kinds of hoarding as dysfunctional so why not wealth hoarding. It would seem that the type of sharing you talk about is the antithesis of hoarding.

Oct 22 2013:
People seem to be 'judged' by how useful they are, not how much stuff they have. There is nothing wrong with having stuff and even a lot of stuff, if we share what we have. In fact this also applies to knowledge.

The more we focus on ourselves, and our stuff, the more selfish and less human we become.

Oct 22 2013:
Thanks Adriaan, the use of 'useful' is also relevant to the question I posed where the hoarder does nothing with the wealth but simply acquire more and more and endlessly indulge in pleasure center stimulus of which mere acquisition is a big part.

your right of course, sharing is essential to usefulness from a community perspective and selfishness is not since it abrogates social responsibility. .

Oct 24 2013:
good point. those are all really non-answers though aren't they, it's more about what they are not doing than what they are. people who are ridiculously wealthy but keep trying to get more are acting the same as if someone were to get to the front of the line and get their meal, but then just stay there.

here in japan when you climb mount fuji there's a limit to the time you can stay at the top, because of course other people also want to see the view from the summit. can you imagine if someone whose time was up was asked to please start making their way back down the mountain answered "it's my right, it's a free country, you're a communist"? yet somehow when it's the same situation but in a different setting, somehow it's perfectly natural that they stay there earning most of the money so there's less for everyone else.

Oct 24 2013:
Interesting point. We have a similar set-up in California (Half Dome in Yosemite). One purchases tickets in order to climb it....I believe on a raffle basis.

But, point well taken on my non-answers.

my point: It is easy to cause ripples and disturbance in the Quality of Consciousness in individuals simply by examining their life with their knowledge and awareness that the examination is taking place. Asking questions directly of them about how they live their life. Seeking understanding is sufficient. No action is required. No judgement is required. No hostility is required. Only open and very clear questions.......regardless of where on the spectrum that individual resides.

In dialogue that is open and leaves nothing to defend, much can be discovered. In this enquiry we end up learning more about ourselves. We learn that everyone, pretty much without exception, has Fear & Scarcity issues. Everyone projects their ego as a defense.

A war on wealth might be similar to the War on/of Terror or the War on/of Drugs or the War to Suppress the Mind via the American Education System and the Media Industrial Complex........a furthering fragmentation of consciousness.

Oct 24 2013:
i'd very much like that to be true, but we live in a world where people choose to take more than their fair share even when they fully understand what they're doing and what it means to the people they're doing it to. understanding isn't only enough when the person is reasonable.

Oct 23 2013:
Let me reply here again to your other comment below.....Yes, I agree with you. I did some light reading on hoarding.......and usually this kind of behavior has to do with keeping things even after they are no good. With money, it is a totally different thing.

I know people who don't want to spend 5 cents on a piece of candy. They rather go without the candy because saving money is an obsession.

With money hoarding, the kind of money that some regular 9-5 working class people might hoard, it is viewed as OCB....Obsessive Compulsive Behavior. Sadly, I know people like that........sometimes hoarding might be a sign of a dementia as well (in the elderly). I have friends who have dealt with this type of illness in their loved ones.

Comment deleted

Oct 23 2013:
Thank you for getting me interested and for your explanation!

Now I assume I am this fox in Krisztián's view, yet if I was unable to recognize that I can't get what I desire (grapes) any analogy wouldn't help my fox-wish either, would it? ;o)

Or am I the grape? See, I am getting confused now! :o)

But this is just the usual game between Krisztián and me. We confuse each other either on purpose or even without, which can be quite entertaining at times and thats what keeps us going. :o)

Also Krisztián has a very very very long 'to do list', which does neither allow to read long comments, nor to write long comments, which makes me think he would probably be more happy on twitter than on TED, yet he might just not know about the paradise of the '140 characters' limit ... ;o)

I don't know if there is another analogy within the animal kingdom regarding awareness of being contempt towards others, but from my experience, if there is any, it may well help to bring in another fox ... :o)

And since I learned the following form Mary M. here on TED, I just can't help it to let the fox speak for himself:

Oct 23 2013:
Carolyn, you might find it interesting to scam through my conversation of Knowledge being a Curse........a lot of insights have been brought out regarding what one does with knowledge.............

This story helped create the American saying...."sour grapes".
Meaning that, when people show they don't care for something, it is usually because they cannot have it. The are really envious/jealous.

I think that is why Krisztian gave his insightful comment above........Envy is your sin.

He was alluding to the fact that some people might view wealthy people are hoarders of money. And, he is saying, with his short comment, that since you cannot possess the money yourself, you call them a name............."hoarder". But at the root of the name is a feeling........envy.

Oct 23 2013:
And how does this analogy pair with dysfunctional behavior?

As little I know about Krisztián's world view, it seems to me, that dysfunctional behavior in this context is rather promoted than ever questioned. Thus, and to diffuse any form of critical thinking, further investigations and reflections have to be branded and coined as 'bad' and this as soon as possible and wherever it happens.

This is why he is using the terms 'envy' and 'sin', because by our cultural background nobody likes to be or to appear envy or sinful.

This method is not new and often used to prevent uncomfortable questions, justifications or even worse.

In some parts of the world one can even end in jail when certain 'taboos' are touched and all of them are in direct relation to the maintenance of power. Politically, economically and religious.

The 'fox' is just a mild form of it, yet clever, as it comes with an auto-redirect protection mechanism who scares those who don't detect the mechanism.

As our species has gatherers DNA, hording is almost part of our instincts and thereby prone to develop abnormalities and uncontrolled behavior, which I consider dysfunctional and this without any envy or sin attached to it.

When someone is hoarding beer mats or stamps from all over the world, we call him/her a 'collector' and someone who smiles about it or finds it odd we wouldn't call a sinner, because it wouldn't make sense in the context, provided, he isn't interested in beer mats or stamps himself and thereby a collector as well.

Yet when it is about money, as you rightly stated, it gets assumed, that all of us are collectors as well and we get therefore coined as sinful and enviousness the very moment we start asking questions about hording it.

I agree that from a collectors perspective it might seem odd as well, that my use of beer mats is to save the table underneath my glass, yet hording beer mats usually doesn't hurt other people, so I don't mind him/her doing it.

Oct 23 2013:
Yet if he/she would start to sell anything else to gain more and more beer-mats to satisfy an endless desire for more, than it would begin to hurt the family, and this would be the point were hording gets out of control and becomes a dysfunctional behavior. Would we consider it sinful or enviousness if the family would start to question this sort of destructive behavior, or would be rather consider it helpful to get professional help for the collector who got out of control?

It is the extremes which turns normal and harmless behavior into destructive ones.

Now why cant we raise the same question on money?

Why is any criticism of destructive hording in this area immediately branded and coined?
Why do we accept gambling as addictive yet never question its influence on the stock-market?

To effectively block this sort of criticism, you present the critics as little envious characters filled to their ears with their sins, and while doing so it keeps others to think the same way and more importantly, to ever get the idea to call for professional help.

Oct 23 2013:
Let me come back and say that hoarding is a dysfunctional behavior.
We have watched many documentaries on this terrible illness.

But never with money..........

I do know that old timers, because of distrust, hid (hoarded) their money in the walls of their home.
Some died and never told a soul where they kept it. Only to have it be discovered by the new home owners.

Oct 23 2013:
if someone really wants to be super over precise, it is possible that someone is a pathologic hoarder of money. but that condition is rare, and probably nobody would open a conversation about them. maybe a psychiatrist, i don't know. i don't even know if it has been studied.

when a layman talks about hoarders of money, he usually talks about CEOs and owners of huge companies. i doubt that anyone with a serious mental/behavioral condition of hoarding can become anything of the sort. the very essence of business is spending money. hoarders don't spend.

Oct 24 2013:
If hording money would be as harmless as hording beer mats for their beauty and fun, I wouldn't mind it much.

Unfortunately, the hording of scarce items will consequently result in people who don't get to have them as well or to little to be of any real use.

The problem of money is, that it is not only scares, yet only comes to live with its equivalent of dept. So ones it gets horded (or in this case increased), which is not as literally as Dagobert Duck does, than those who have it produce all of those who have to carry the dept of it.

If goods and services were related to the time it takes to make them, and money just a medium for the exchange process, than hording would not be possible beyond anyones maximum time per day. So with little sleep one could hord a little more, yet never beyond the equivalent of 24 hours a day. So slightly more wealthy people would be slightly more tired. Thats it.

But if you were to find this horded 1 million dollar in your drywall and would invest it in some company for interest, than you could cosily sleep on your sofa, while other people work for and in your interest. Some days later, you then have 1,05 million dollar while you were sleeping and the procedure goes on. This way, more and more people have to work more and more for your benefit and you are still in your pajamas. And this sort of hoarding creates a lot of tiered people, who get to work harder and harder and a view lucky people like you who 'found' the critical mass for the process to perpetuate itself for you by others.

This sort of hording isn't just unfair, it also creates really difficult and even lethal conditions for the majority of people while a view get to decide if Monday is more suitable for a Ferrari or a Maserati ... :o)

And no, I love my car and wouldn't change it, although I can't fix much on it on my own anymore ... lol :o)

Oct 24 2013:
I appreciate the explanation of the million dollars. And all the cause and effect relationships.

I think that the hoarding of money is going to get worse. And I also think that the hoarding of gold has begun.

On the weekend I listened to a program on addiction.
In one of the pieces inside the show they discussed "cereals". Specifically three types of cereals that are only manufactured in the month of October. Do you know what people do with the cereals when they show up in the market?
Here, you can listen to the three minute piece yourself....

Oct 24 2013:
Dizzy or not I jump my best to keep up with you or close behind.

The change in hording gold rather than money is only a matter of trust and stability of both of their values, thats all. And today any metal outweighs the value of paper, which was different in the past, where paper was very scarce and high in value.

The serials example is actually exemplary for the driving force for hording, which is scarcity.
Scarcity is also a dominating figure on how 'value' gets defined, which thereby links both of them together. Artificial scarcity is one way to manipulate prices and markets.

For some reason my brother is an unlucky fellow if it is about products he really likes. As if by some magical force, any product he tries and falls in love with is doomed to vanish off the shelfs because they didn't turn out to be profitable for their producers.

Chocolate, soft drinks, toothpaste, you name it. As soon as my brother gets to know and like them, those products will have a maximal life cycle of about one year and then they are finished. This causes my brother at times to hoard what ever he can find left of it, so at least he has a little longer to enjoy them.

This only happened once with me and Cherry Coke, which I liked, than it was not available anymore in Germany and when it returned many years later, I liked it again. But I didn't hord anything when I knew it would go.

Maybe this is because I have no 'collectors' DNA which my brother has, I don't know.

Oct 22 2013:
interesting question! it's been clear for some time that we are missing out on many benefits by not having a 'salary cap'. every dollar that a person earns is a dollar someone else can't earn, so when someone already has more than they could possibly ever use, all they're really doing is blocking other people from also becoming wealthy. also when someone has that much money they can't really do much with it but keep it in stocks, gold, or whatever else, all of which effectively keeps that money out of the economy, meaning reduced sales and therefore profits world-wide from money being hoarded by people protecting their wealth. a good historical example is benjamin franklin. after becoming very rich through his very successful printing business, he retired and spent his time inventing, giving all his inventions to the world, patent-free.

the same thing is true for patents and copyrights. i'm a teacher, and i learned a number of years ago that current teenage students have no idea what star wars is. around the same time i read a story in a newspaper about a guy who wanted to build a life-size at-at walker in his backyard for people to come and see, and george lucas protected his copyright, telling the man not to do it, and thereby completely shooting off his own foot. think of how many dads would've brought their kids to see it, and how many of those would've then wanted to know more about star wars, and how many new star wars fans would've emerged. there's a point where a movie, game, or product has made most of the money it's ever going to, and by protecting copyright we are actually blocking people who might have great ideas for spinoffs and sequels. as long as the law gives original creators a share of whatever these new works based on their ideas make (say 10%?) then why should copyright owners be able to block follow-on works even 10 years or more after their creation?

by 'protecting' wealth, by failing to give way, we actually make less wealth.

I also like the analogy of the town's apple tree. The tree is capable of producing enough apples for everyone to have some for themselves, but if one person takes half the apples the rest of the townsfolk will suffer as a result.

Oct 22 2013:
good point with the apple tree. there are those that say well if he earned half the apples then it's not fair to prevent him from claiming them, to which i'd say what was he doing continuing to work after he'd earned a tenth of the apples?

Oct 22 2013:
Of course, there would be no way one person could 'earn' half the apples if it is a community resource. At least, not without corrupting the community standards.

However we are taking about wealth hoarding and there are countless billionaires and multi-millionaires who never "earned" a cent of the money. They either inherited it or scammed it in some boondoggle or crime.

Consider the relatively recent U.S. financial fiasco where plunderers made off with trillions and taxpayers where left with the subsequent losses? Or the billions that criminal enterprises have netted over the years dealing in guns, drugs and slavery.

Then there is the very real fact that a true Capitalist does not toil, their money toils for them through the enterprises they own. Sure they may put in time making deals here and there, but the wealth invariably flows from the enterprises and those who toil for them in those enterprises. This is their 'capital' and it is the minions that toil in those enterprises who create - but keep little of - the wealth which is part and parcel of that capital.

Oct 22 2013:
yes it depends entirely on how we define 'earn'. say someone owned all of the land in the village and 'earned' half the apples by allowing all residents to live on his land. less insightful people would probably call that a fair trade, because without this deal they wouldn't have anywhere to live. it's the same as the ridiculous suggestion that people should be grateful to their employer for paying them, because "without the employer you wouldn't even have a job!"

a cap on income would pretty much solve this hoarding. there'd be no point buying more land to rent out because you couldn't earn any more from it, you couldn't pay employees less to fill the director's bonuses because they're already at the maximum, etc.

Oct 23 2013:
I think a great start would be to stop treating the wealthy as if they were celebrities and according them special privileges. Personally I think trying to tax the income of the wealthy is a waste of time. there are just too many ways in which they can hide their money.

But what about a 100^ luxury tax? Got a private jet or 150ft+ yacht or exotic automobile you want to land or operate in this country? Pay a premium for the privilege. Want that $50k pice of bling? its now #100k. And since so many wealthy love to brag about and/or flaunt the cost of their 'stuff' as a status symbol, such a tax would simply be supporting them in that process :)

Oct 23 2013:
we actually have something like that in australia, a 25% luxury tax on anything over $50k. what happens is the companies that sell these more expensive goods then reduce their staff levels and pay them less, compared to cheaper competitors, and claim that they "have to" for their goods to remain competitive with those priced slightly cheaper. if we added a 100% luxury tax it'dbe handing the wealthy an excuse to pay their employees less: "because our cost of living just doubled!" this is why i think the only way round it is an income cap. and even that would be difficult.

Oct 23 2013:
agreed, income inequality is becoming more and more of a problem especially since there are far more people than there are jobs for them. There is a movement afoot in a number of nations to implement a Basic and Guaranteed Income to ensure everyone has enough income to ensure they have food shelter and a modicum of comfort. Here is one I am familiar with http://www.basicincome.org/bien/
Here is an interview with one of our senior senators on the subjecthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoIJKTQ3U4A

Because of the kind of predatory, small minded profiteering you describe above it is time to view poverty and income inequality as threats to our basic freedoms. ,

Oct 24 2013:
sure i agree with a minimum income, to which people can aspire to increase by working harder and smarter, but is that enough? what's to stop people from keeping employees on this minimum income even though their benefit to the company is much higher, just so they can keep more of the profit for themselves? over the last few decades productivity has increased as with new technology workers are able to make more in the same time, yet average wages have risen much less than this, and wealth at the top has increased many hundreds of times more than this. it's clear where the money earned from the workers producing more has gone. what will a minimum wage / guaranteed income do to address this?

Oct 24 2013:
well, for me the main purpose of a min-com is to provide a citizen greater freedom of choice. unlike today an employee would not be completely at the mercy of such employers. The min-com could allow that person the freedom to leave the job if being mistreated or disrespected and to find something better. It would also allow a person the freedom to look after a sick or dying relative, to have as much time as they wish for grieving, to expand upon their education and training desires as a few examples.

Of course all that would be dependent upon the structure and focus of the min-com legislation and the government in power at the time, but freedom can become a very contagious experience and not many politicians can long denying a freedom the people are clamouring for :).

Oct 24 2013:
that's true, but it's still not a solution. people leaving a job where they're never offered a fair raise or a chance to get into the upper tiers because they're already occupied or soon filled by someone else who's already rich for a job where exactly the same thing happens isn't solving anything.

a lot of people these days say well leaving a company to find a better one is great, but there aren't any better companies. there can't possibly be, because if there were that company's higher costs associated with giving their employees a fair go would put them at a competitive disadvantage. take america for example, you've got all those people claiming to be patriots and all about how great america is, but they'll fire their american countrymen at the drop of a hat if the opportunity to employ someone in another country for less is there. even if someone really did want to do the right thing they'd get voted out of the director's chair for not maximising profits and stock returns.

Oct 24 2013:
Of course a min-com is but one form of greater economic freedom. But once the concept of freedom to choose how to spend your limited time on this planet catches hold others will figure out the rest of the pieces required for that freedom.

In fact, there are already have a number of nations. albeit with smaller populations, where the nation's wealth pays for everything and every citizen shares in that largesse from health care and education to gas and housing.. That means that tens of millions already know and live freedom from the coercive "jobs" mantra. The seeds are planted. All they need is care and nurturing to blossom elsewhere :)

Episode 517 demonstrates systemic dysfunction...Also, why should people in Romania have to put their lives in front of the Chevron's fracking hell coming their way. The corporation and the financial parasites that feed upon destruction hoards oil and shale gas to exploit the market when the price is high, whilst the Romanian environment is historically utilized to hoard homegrown produce to survive.

The share holders of Chevron don't have to tolerate the poisoning of the water table and destruction of the arable quality of life from the comfort of their affluent environ...would this qualify as theft in your mind?

Oct 31 2013:
What gives you the right to say that hoarding is dysfunctional? If anyone wishes to collect mass quantities of anything that is their right as long as they do not engage in theft to do so.

Nov 2 2013:
firstly, anyone has the right to label anything as they see fit. secondly, one can clearly exercise their rights and be dysfunctional in doing so. Drinking and eating to gross excess are two simple examples. Greed, no matter how it's dressed up, is dysfunctional, and should not be given a pass and rebranded as a mark of success.

Comment deleted

Comment deleted

Oct 28 2013:
Thank you Carolyn for making this distinction. Your right about the differences and for me I suspect the real difference is simply one of a culturally shared perspective and little else. In words, a different attitude towards wealth and resources. .

Oct 30 2013:
It is interesting how Euro and- Americanocentrism can express itself as the glorification of 'native cultures' who are 'more in tune with their environment' and live in some sort of unspoilt paradise. Such people are in dire need of a history lesson.

Comment deleted

Oct 27 2013:
In my view: hoarding has been happening and will continue to happen. since wealth is seen as a major incentive for any action or activity until we come to know a better alternative for hoarding wealth hoarding will continue. wealth represents a lot more than just money, it represents status, respect, pride, prestige and the most important one security. so the question is "Is there a better alternative?". cheers

Oct 27 2013:
agreed, which begs the question WHY are the wealthy accorded any kind of status, respect or prestige in the first place?
Beyond the hoarding issue, we have all kinds of historical evidence showing that many family fortunes and plenty of arrogant billionaires have been made by ripping off taxpayers through government boondoggles and criminal enterprises such as bootlegging during prohibition in the past and drug smuggling more recently. Then there are the countless stock and investment frauds perpetrated by crooks who then became "shrewd entrepreneurs' throughout the past century, but which pale in comparison to the more recent heist where corporate crooks robbed millions of investors of trillions of dollars and then the cost of that fraud was dumped in the laps of U.S. taxpayers by colluding politicians. What about those who did nothing to "earn" the wealth other than simply being born into it? .

Surely wealth in and of itself is the poorest reason to accord honours such as prestige, respect or status without first determining just how that wealth was acquired?

Oct 26 2013:
If wealth is a common idea applicably manifest in the reality we share, its democratic value as a measure of justice for all is in our ability to make it viable for purpose in function between the present populous and the future generation.

Consolidated in the hands of the few, wealth is an unattractive, dysfunctional impediment to the terms and conditions of a fair and healthy social contract. Who under any democratic option, would choose to harvest wealth into the hands of a 1% class. . Problem being the ability to harvest wealth dominates the system function leading to money shortage and money printing which in turn leads to deflation, which directly impedes the spending power of the masses.

The main asset of wealth known to me is the planet and it's surroundings, followed closely by the variation and diversity of species all gathered like lucky prisoners in the one penal colony doing time. If the wealthy knew they were wealthy from birth, would they tolerate the perversion of their time by the few hoarding the significance at a major cost to their credibility. If we ditch differentiation (discrimination) in pay and put all the money on equality, I think you would solve way more problems than you would create!

(according to Bertrand Russel iirc) the measure of wealth was the amount of time a person could spend with his family, friends, drinking, contemplating etc,

and the word cretin was originally used to describe people driven by their own selfish interests and little interest in common causes.

I'd say it's a value problem, and probably should be treated as such and then other elements of the solution should fall in place spontaneously.

Until the value system is shifted any other solution is doomed to corrupt itself irreparably and then regress into current or worse state of things, see eastern European communism, the early ideals, the later corruption and fall and the kind of capitalism it eventually generated as a historical example of this failed experiment.

Global equality is a value system in which humans are the principle intrinsic value of wealth, without prejudice within law as a rule, since, only humans can distribute the amount of time a person could spend with his family, friends, drinking, contemplating etc,. Whose rule of law is viable to decency, goodwill, civility, whose rule of law is real to common community wealth before private oligarchy?

Whose right to wealth is right, whose right to poverty is right, whose right to common wealth as a common value system is overdue by several centuries, what is a good value and a bad value system in the undemocratically evolved / devolved state of things as they stand today?

What is a fair, a responsible and a transparent value system of recognizable order and goodwill for the next generation? What should humans be responsible for, between work and education?
What quantity of wealth as a reflection of financial income is quality or inequality of income and what feels right (the minimum wage, the living wage, the sustainable quality of life), what feels wrong, individual private financial independence and collective public financial accountability responsible for the credibility of a civilized agreement?

Is individual negotiation for remuneration in work fit for purpose in relation to personal responsibility for individual carbon footprints or would a collective negotiation for remuneration in work define a community approach to the sustainable quality of life?

Why should one human earn more or less than the next human in a community based value system?

Oct 25 2013:
The way we have started to define "wealth" has been very problematic. Yes material wealth is important but whatever happened to "ethical and social wealth"? Shouldn't we be hoarding them as well. The good thing about trying to hoard them all is that you make this world a better place. When we defined poverty as only material wealth, the solutions we came up with took away the "ethical and social resources" of the "poor". We broke families and communities (rural migration) so that all could have material wealth (that's what we lied about). The whole plan from the beginning was so that some 20% could hoard the 80% of the resources of the planet and leave everyone poor in all aspects of life. We even made sure that quality education for "world leaders" was reserved for those who hoard material wealth.